Meta-analysis of clinical trial safety data in a drug development program: Answers to frequently asked questions

Clinical Trials

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 20-31

  Berlin, Jesse A ^a   Crowe, Brenda J ^b   Whalen, Edward ^c   Xia, H Amy ^d   Koro, Carol E ^e   Kuebler, Juergen ^f  

^a JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^c PFIZER INC   (United States)

^d AMGEN INC   (United States)

^e GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^f CSL BEHRING GMBH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; CANCER MORTALITY; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLASSIFICATION ALGORITHM; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG SAFETY; ETHNICITY; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; PATIENT CODING; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT SELECTION; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; RISK ASSESSMENT; SIGNAL DETECTION; STUDY DESIGN;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84872844620     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774512465495     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007 ; 356 (24). 2457-71
2. Bridge JA, Iyengar S, Salary CB, et al. Clinical response and risk for reported suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in pediatric antidepressant treatment: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2007 ; 297 (15). 1683-96
3. United States Food and Drug Administration. Relationship between psychotropic drugs and pediatric suicidality, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-tab08-hammads-review.pdf
4. Hammad TA, Laughren T, Racoosin J. Suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 ; 63 (3). 332-39
5. Crowe BJ, Xia HA, Berlin JA, et al. Recommendations for safety planning, data collection, evaluation and reporting during drug, biologic and vaccine development: A report of the safety planning, evaluation, and reporting team. Clin Trials. 2009 ; 6 (5). 430-40
6. Berlin JA, Laird NM, Sacks HS, Chalmers TC. A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989 ; 8 (2). 141-51
7. International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH). Guidance for industry - M4E: The CTD - Efficacy, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/UCM129865.pdf
8. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Premarketing risk assessment, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm126958.pdf
9. Management of safety information from clinical trials. Geneva: CIOMS ; 2005 :
10. Hennekens CH, Hebert PR, Schneider WR, et al. Academic perspectives on the United States Food and Drug Administration's guidance for industry on diabetes mellitus. Contemp Clin Trials. 2010 ; 31 (5). 411-13
11. Ibrahim JG, Chen MH, Xia HA, Liu T. Bayesian meta-experimental design: Evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes. Biometrics. 2012 ; 68 (2). 578-86
12. Hammad TA, Pinheiro SP, Neyarapally GA. Secondary use of randomized controlled trials to evaluate drug safety: A review of methodological considerations. Clin Trials. 2011 ; 8 (5). 559-70
13. Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Wandel S, et al. Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011 ; 342: c7086
14. Cipriani A, Furukawa TA, Churchill R, Barbui C. Validity of indirect comparisons in meta-analysis. Lancet. 2007 ; 369 (9558). 270-71
15. Ioannidis JP. Indirect comparisons: The mesh and mess of clinical trials. Lancet. 2006 ; 368 (9546). 1470-72
16. Fu H, Price K, Nilsson M, Ruberg S. Identifying Potential Adverse Events Dose-Response Relationships Via Bayesian Indirect And Mixed Treatment Comparison Models. J Biopharm Stat. :
17. Olkin I, Sampson A. Comparison of meta-analysis versus analysis of variance of individual patient data. Biometrics. 1998 ; 54 (1). 317-22
18. Posner K, Oquendo MA, Gould M, Stanley B, Davies M. Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA): Classification of suicidal events in the FDA's pediatric suicidal risk analysis of antidepressants. Am J Psychiatry. 2007 ; 164 (7). 1035-43
19. Szczech LA, Berlin JA, Feldman HI. The effect of antilymphocyte induction therapy on renal allograft survival. A meta-analysis of individual patient-level data. Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1998 ; 128 (10). 817-26
20. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, Szczech LA, Feldman HI. Individual patient-versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: Ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med. 2002 ; 21 (3). 371-87
21. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 ; 55 (1). 86-94
22. Schmid CH, Stark PC, Berlin JA, Landais P, Lau J. Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 ; 57 (7). 683-97
23. Hu M, Cappelleri JC, Lan KK. Applying the law of iterated logarithm to control type I error in cumulative meta-analysis of binary outcomes. Clin Trials. 2007 ; 4 (4). 329-40
24. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Diabetes mellitus - Evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071627.pdf
25. Mehrotra DV, Heyse JF. Use of the false discovery rate for evaluating clinical safety data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2004 ; 13 (3). 227-38
26. Berry SM, Berry DA. Accounting for multiplicities in assessing drug safety: A three-level hierarchical mixture model. Biometrics. 2004 ; 60 (2). 418-26
27. Xia HA, Ma H, Carlin BP. Bayesian hierarchical modeling for detecting safety signals in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2011 ; 21 (5). 1006-29
28. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994 ; 309 (6965). 1351-55
29. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Meth. 2010 ; 1: 97-111
30. Engels EA, Schmid CH, Terrin N, Olkin I, Lau J. Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: An empirical study of 125 meta-analyses. Stat Med. 2000 ; 19 (13). 1707-28
31. United States Food and Drug Administration. FDA's draft guidance for industry non-inferiority clinical trials, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf
32. Localio AR, Margolis DJ, Berlin JA. Relative risks and confidence intervals were easily computed indirectly from multivariable logistic regression. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 ; 60 (9). 874-82
33. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. Stat Med. 2004 ; 23 (9). 1351-75
34. Sweeting MJ, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. Correction. Stat Med. 2006 ; 25: 2700
35. Poole C, Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol. 1999 ; 150 (5). 469-75
36. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin PB, Van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 2002 ; 64 (4). 583-639